Originally posted by oboe
I don't trust 'extreme' judges, period. Doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal they are going to render a decision that harms me somehow.
...
Doesn't bother me; I'm for whatever works and works good, and works cheap. If that means public ownership of the means of production in some cases, then fine.
Hi Oboe,
Please don't interpret this as beating up on you, it isn't. It's just that your post displays how pervasive a certain philosophy that is part and parcel of the Supreme Court (SC) decision is. I'm going to break this down into two sections:
I. You say you don't want judges who render decisions that hurt you. By this I trust you mean (and you can correct me here) you don't want judges who make decisions that contradict your worldview or preferences. Like most modern Americans you want judges who are going to decide in accord with your beliefs. You strongly believe, I take it, that acting in accordance with your beliefs will produce the greatest common good. Therefore when an eminent domain action will bring about the greatest good, it should be upheld, and when it won't it should be struck down. Hence you want to see judges installed who have similar if not identical preferences and politics and who rule according to their preferences.
Therefore since we view our own preferences as good and normal, an "extremist" is defined as someone who can be expected not to rule in accordance with our preferences. The less likely they are to agree with us, the more extreme their beliefs are.
What Conservatives want, however, (and you can read Scalia's comments on
strict constructionist constitutional interpretation here) are justices who will "strictly interpret" the constitution setting their own preferences aside. For them an activist judge is someone who does follow his preferences rather than ruling according to the strictest possible interpretation of the constitution.
Let me give you an example of how that works in my own life and work. I am, as you know a minister, and I belong to a denomination that has a constitution I have sworn that I have "received and adopted" as my own, and that I will follow. In part that Constitution states regarding worship that
"the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture." therefore while I have certain preferences regarding worship style and might desire to implement them in the church, I have to confess that they are not prescribed in the bible. Therefore I follow the constitution, and I set my preferences to one side and worship according to the mandates in the word, even if I foolishly believe that "my way is better" or that "my preferences would better serve the common good". It should function the same way for a justice on the SC and that the common good is best served by adhering to fixed standards, rather than sliding principles. The meaning of the document is therefore fixed rather than "living" and can only change by means of amendment rather than
de novo interpretation. This will sometimes, perhaps even often, mean that strict constructionists will rule
against what the popular culture considers to be "best for the common good."
II. Regarding your statement regarding public ownership of the means of production, that is in essence, exactly the same philosophy as the current SC decision regarding "eminent domain." What public ownership of the means of production usually has entailed (in Britain for instance) is the public sector taking over or "nationalizing" formally privately owned industries. Now in Britain, this involved paying off the owners of the seized industry (as in the case of eminent domain property) but usually not in accord with real market value, or with a view to potential future profits. And keep in mind that this seizure is done regardless of the wishes of the stockholders, who are often ordinary middle-class people. They suffer even more because they are often paid off at or below the current market price, which is often not the price that the stockholder would sell his stock at and often results in a substantial real loss. Still this beats the system that prevailed in Cuba, Zimbabwe, and the Soviet Union were private industry and agriculture was simply seized "for the common good," with no payments to the original owners.
All in all though, it reflects a utilitarian idea that the ends justify the means and that whatever serves "the common good" in that it is in accord with our preferences is justifiable.
I don't agree with that philosophy. Like the framers of the constitution, I believe in fixed unchanging standards, and what Jefferson called "natural rights" and that theft, as defined by God in the moral law, is always theft, regardless of whether we see it as "aiding the common good." To quote Lord Acton -
"Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral laws are written on the table of eternity." Ultimately, it comes down to whether we act in accordance with a belief in fixed and unchanging absolutes, or whether we believe that all decisions are both relative and subjective.
- SEAGOON
